If game 1 the player is an atrocious jerk, I'm going to punish right then and there. Being a saint in 4 other games is not going to vindicate his atrocious behavior in game 1 - just as living by the highest ethical standards all your life isn't going to factor into the prosecutions case that you slipped up and committed murder one day. It might get a few years off your sentence, but you're going to get punished.
Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty in my book - as I believe it should be. The difference is, you only need to violate the summoner's code once out of up to five games. Once is enough. I'll pardon "mild" violations of the code - up to a point. I'll pardon bad games and cases with accusations of feeding but with no obvious intent to feed revealed. I'll pardon the case where there is only negativity once or twice, but if I see someone call another player a "noob" a dozen times, I'm punishing.
Originally Posted by HalcyonicHS
What. How is that even fair? Isn't innocence presumed over guilt?
, because there is a tendency that people decide to punish without thinking too much about it.
Innocence is presumed over guilt. The OP just needs to find evidence of guilt in one game. He does not need to scour all 5 games and weigh them. The the player was an atrocious jerk in game 1, that's all that's needed to find guilt.
Not being a jerk is easy. There are very few cases where a person who is punished for being a jerk that I believe should be pardoned instead. Of the jerks that are pardoned - they will either improve their behavior or be caught eventually.
The only cases I'm truly concerned about are players who are banned for "primarily having bad games". These are the players who I want to pardon - and want their cases overturned. I have two of these cases in my tribunal log - they are the two most shameful punishes in my entire log. In both cases I voted to pardon.